Subject: The First Ten Amendments were not sufficient in an of
themselves to restrain the STATES

The First Ten Amendments (The Bill of Rights)
were held NOT sufficient in an of themselves to restrain the STATES from
Depriving People of Property, nor of the Freedom of Speech, nor of the
Right to Compensation for property Taken, nor any of the other rights mentioned
in the Bill of Rights. It had been decided that the Bill of Rights in
an of itself only restrained the acts of the Federal Government, but not even
the most tyranical abuses of power of the States:

"The
constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States
for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the
individual states. Each state established a constitution for itself, and in
that constitution, provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of
its particular government, as its judgment dictated. The people of the United
States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best
adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests. The
powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself; and
the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and,
we think, necessarily, applicable to the government created by the instrument.
They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself; not of
distinct governments, framed by different persons and for different purposes.
If these propositions be correct, the fifth amendment
must be understood as restraining the power of the general government, not as
applicable to the states." http://laws.findlaw.com/us/32/243.html

"As explained by Jon Roland,
of the Constitution Society, the language of the Fourteenth
Amendment was 'intended by the framers of the Fourteenth to extend the
jurisdiction and protection of federal courts to all rights recognized by the
Constitution and Bill of Rights against actions by state
government.'"http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm"

Further purely academic insights into the thinking of the
Framers and the States Ratifying the First Ten Amendments (the Bill of Rights)
is to be found in the essay titled:

That essay documents that the Framers of the Bill of
Rights, (e.g., James Madison) had also proposed an "Article the Fourteenth",
that "called for selective incorporation against the states some of the
other Articles" of amendment (i.e., some of the Bill of Rights) in
these words:

"No state shall infringe the equal
rights of conscience, nor the freedom of speech or of the press, nor of the
right of trial by jury in criminal
cases."

The essay quotes from records of the debate on this
proposed 14th Amendment that:

"Mr. MADISON conceives this to be the most valuable
amendment in the whole list. If there were any reason to restrain
the government of the United States from infringing upon these essential
rights, it was equally necessary that they should be secured against the state
governments. He thought that if they provided against one, it was
as necessary to provide against the other, and it was satisfied that it would
be equally grateful to the people." http://members.tripod.com/~candst/14thamend.htm

"It is ironic that this particular Article was numbered
fourteen and that it called for selective incorporation of other amendments in
the "Bill of Rights package" against the states. It is interesting
that it was passed by "the people's" representatives, but defeated by the
state's representatives. It is very ironic that another Article
also numbered fourteen was passed some 79 or so years later and that it would,
in time be used to selectively incorporate other Articles of the "Bill of Rights
package" against the states." http://members.tripod.com/~candst/14thamend.htm

79 years later the People of the United States corrected the
Framers' omission, and obviated any further argument as to the effect of
the Bill of Rights as a limit on the tyrannical power of the
States, by prosecuting a Civil War against the tyrannical States and
thereby compelled the States to Ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, which echoed
the same unambiguous "No State Shall..." language:

By the end of the Civil War, the need for the
People to have a way to restrain tyranny of the states was painfully
clear, as explained in the speech of John A. Bingham (the draftsmand of
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment) introducing the Fourteenth Amendment
to Congress:

'As slaves were not protected by the
Constitution, there might be some color of excuse for the slave States in
their disregard for the requirement of the bill of rights as to slaves in
refusing them protection in life or property. * * * 'But, sir, there never was
even colorable excuse, much less apology, for any man North or South claiming
that any State Legislature or State court, or State Executive, has any right
to deny protection to any free citizen of the United States within their
limits in the rights of life, liberty, and property. Gentlemen who oppose this
amendment oppose the grant of power to enforce the bill of rights.
Gentlemen who oppose this amendment simply declare to these rebel States, 'Go
on with your confiscation statutes, your statutes of banishment, your statutes
of unjust imprisonment, your statutes of murder and death against men because
of their loyalty to the Constitution and Government of the United States."
Cong.Globe.at 1089-1091.http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=332&invol=46

"After
the civil war had closed, the same authority was asserted, and, in the States
recently in insurrection, was exercised to the oppression of the freedmen; and
towardscitizens of the
North seeking residence there,
or citizens resident there who had maintained their loyalty during
the war for nationality, a feeling of
jealousy and dislike existed which could not fail soon to fined expression in
discriminating and hostile legislation. It was to prevent the possibility of
such legislation in future, and its enforcement where already adopted, that
the fourteenth amendment was directed."

"Prior to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment,
the Supreme Court generally took the position that the substantive protections
of the Bill of Rights did not apply to actions by state governments.
Subsequently, under the "incorporation doctrine", certain selected provisions
were applied to states." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment

In Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v.
Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897), the US Supreme Court in the context of a
lawsuit brought by White people acknowledged for the first time that some of the
guarantees of the Bill of Rights are of such a fundamental nature as to be
included in the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "Liberty" substantively
secured by "Law" and Due Process thereof. See: Part 1: Law,
a Revolutionary Idea for Peace at http://billstclair.com/ferran The
Court held that the Right to Just Compensation of the 5th Amendment was
incorporated in the "Law" Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/166/226.html

The Supreme Court's implementation of the
Fourteenth Amendment's specific intent to secure the entire Bill of Rights
against infringement by the States was delayed and hindered greatly by the
Fraudulent proposition (first invented by Attorneys of the
States), and maintained by some people up to this present day, that
the sole or primary "purpose" and effect of the "No State
Shall" provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment "was to prevent
discriminatory treatment of the recently emancipated slaves." This
Fraud was soon exploded by able Congressmen and Senators who had
framed and proposed the Fourteenth Amendment, some of whom later
appeared before the US Supreme Court as Attorneys advocating for the
Rights of White (and All) Citizens. Here is a note about their first
successes in dispelling the fraud and vindicating the rights of White
citizens: The Original
Intent of the 14th Amendmenthttp://billstclair.com/ferran/fourteenth.html

Anyone who disputes that the purpose and original
intent of the "No State Shall" provisions of the Fourteenth
Amendment was to provide protection of the Federal Courts over
the Civil Rights of White Citizens, no less than Black Citizens, is a
punk. Some Judges and Attorneys are such Punks, but that does not
justify the perpetuation of the fraudulent proposition that still causes
mischief for citizens today.

I have not yet received from the
"National Association for the Advancement of Caucasion Latinos" a response to
this challenge:

----- Original Message ----- From: Mark
Ferran To: info@... Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 7:57 PM Subject: Amendment
Fourteen...was designed primarily, to secure to the colored race, thereby
invested with the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of citizenship, the
enjoyment of all the civil rights that, under the law, are enjoyed by white
persons").

Dear Officer of the NAACL:

I dispute
your contention that the Fourteenth Amendment "was designed primarily, to secure
to the colored race,.., the enjoyment of all the civil rights that, under the
law, are enjoyed by white persons". http://www.naacl.com/the%20harm.htm

To the Contrary, the Fourteenth Amendment was "designed primarily" to give
CONGRESS POWER to secure to Loyal WHITE Citizens the Rights of Life, Liberty and
Property which had been infringed by the Southern states prior to and during and
after the civil war. The only provision of the Fourteenth Amendment that
was "designed primarily" for the benefit of the black freedmen was the first
clause that granted them citizenship which had been denied by Dred Scott v.
Sandford. Everything else in the first paragraph of the Fourteenth
Amendment was "designed primarily" for the protecton of white citizens, but not
excluding the black citizens.

That essay begins to prove that: "Afro-centric views of the purposes of the
Fourteenth Amendment are NOT supported by the "First Legislative Construction"
of that Amendment by Congress (i.e., 42 USC sections 1983, 1985, 1986) nor by
the contemporaneous and cumulative interpretations of the United States Supreme
Court. (see cases and statutes below). The Fourteenth Amendment was
originally intended to give even the "humblest" WHITE citizen born in any state
an "assurance that, for his protection, he can invoke the whole power of the
government." http://www.sierratimes.com/03/02/26/arpubrg022603.htm

This historical fact was established by top-notch attorneys
who advocated vigilantly for the expansion of rights secured by the Fourteenth
Amendment. Without their efforts might have been stuck with the Majority
opinion in the Slaughter House Cases, instead of enjoying the much more
beneficial doctrines of the Three Dissenters in the Slaughter House cases.
(See Bartemeyer v. Iowa opinions quoted in The Original Intent of the Fourteenth
Amendment at www.billstclair.com/ferran
)

"The Fourteenth Amendment, according to Justice Field, "was intended
to give practical effect to the Declaration of 1776 of inalienable rights which
are the gift of the Creator, which the law does not confer, but only
recognizes." Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 105 (1872, Dissenting Opinion).
Agreeing with this opinion, Justice Harlan said that since the adoption of the
Fourteenth Amendment, "the privileges and immunities specified in the first ten
amendments as belonging to the people of the United States are equally protected
by the constitution." Dissent in Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U. S. 581, 616
(1899)."http://www.constitution.org/haines/haines_007.htm

And, from http://www.constitution.org/haines/haines_008.htm
"Three justices seem to have determined, in large part, the trend of the
opinions of the Supreme Court, in the cases changing the meaning and content of
the term "due process of law" and in ushering in a period characterized as a
"carnival of unconstitutionality, which perhaps was at its height between 1890
and 1910."[5] They were Justices Field, Harlan, and Brewer. Certain
peculiarities and characteristics of these justices made a distinct impression
upon this unique feature of modern American constitutional law. Foremost of this
group is Justice Field.

"He had, we are told, a
quality of intellect which led him on all occasions to seek for fundamental and
universal principles.[6] His creative power, exhibited in a marked degree in his
legislative career, was also characteristic of his decisions on the bench.[7]
His experience in a frontier community, as well as his training in early life,
developed a philosophy of individualism in which he was disposed to encourage in
every way individual self-exertion, and to object to measures attempting to
regulate economic life.[8] It was this philosophy that led Justice Field to
object strongly to any exercise of governmental power which to him seemed
arbitrary,[9] and that impelled him to insist that the Fourteenth Amendment was
designed to prevent arbitrary governmental acts.[10] More consistently than any
other justice, he opposed the inclination of the justices of the Supreme Court
not to give the broadest meaning and application to the due process and equal
protection phrases of the Fourteenth Amendment. He was the spokesman of the
court in some of the leading cases in which the interpretation of the amendment
was changed, and continued on the bench until the reversal of the
Slaughter-House Case and similar cases was accomplished, and until the amendment
was interpreted as at least a negative protection to any interference with civil
or political rights.[11]

"Justice Harlan, like
Justice Field, was influenced considerably by the philosophy and experience of
the frontier, and he, too, was individualistic in much of his thinking. He was
regarded as a "militant justice," and was strongly nationalistic in his
political theories.[12] Inclined to emphasize the theory of natural rights he
was readily disposed to adopt the doctrine of fundamental rights which the
justices of the Supreme Court were slowly developing in connection with the
interpretation of the due process clause. He had supposed, he said, that the
intention of the people of the United States was to prevent the deprivation of
any legal right in violation of the fundamental principles inhering in due
process of law,[13] objected to any interference with private property
rights,[14] and joined, as a rule, Justice Field in protesting against the
regulative measures of the state legislatures. He agreed with Justice Field that
Congress and the courts ought to be authorized to exercise a national control
over civil rights.[15]

"No greater exponent of the
individualistic philosophy of this period was appointed to the Supreme Court
than Justice Brewer.[16] In decisions while on the circuit court, and in his
opinions and influence on the Supreme Bench, he availed himself of every
opportunity to defend the extreme individualistic doctrines which prevailed at
this time. His point of view was expressed quite freely in an address delivered
before the graduating class of the Yale Law School in June, 1891, on "Protection
to Private Property from Public Attack." Referring to the Declaration of
Independence and the bills of rights of state constitutions, Justice Brewer
said, "they equally affirm that sacredness of life, of liberty, and of property,
are rights, inalienable rights, anteceding human government, and its only sure
foundation, given not by man to man, but granted by the Almighty to everyone,
something which he has by virtue of his manhood, which he may not surrender and
of which he may not be deprived." To Justice Brewer, the Declaration of
Independence was the cornerstone of the federal Constitution.[17]